Mysteries :  The Official forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
David, when I compare the theory of the megalithic global imperial metric standard (TMGIMS) to the theory Gary Osborn presents in Appendix III of "Cosmic Womb: The Seeding of Planet Earth", I find Gary's logic more straight-forward and more compelling [even though I think there is yet another explanation]. In a nutshell, Gary is proposing that the Great Pyramid was laid out in meters first and then the royal cubit was defined using the geometric relationship π/6. One way to (possibly much much later) derive the imperial system is from the south side via the speed of light (page 324) and the nautical mile derives from the perimeter. The implication is that the imperial system is an out-growth of the Giza design, not its basis. I have not double-checked all of Gary's figures. My comments are only based on the general logic of Gary's argument as far as I understand it. Also, I am not saying that esoteric finds in Gary's theory make it more plausible or implausible than the TMEGIMS. I am not judging it based on its external plausibility (eg speed of light, FSC, e, geodesy, etc), only its internal consistency....because that is where you have a problem.

To give one other POV, Alan Green, to whose meter/cubit/foot relationship you refer, would probably say that all three metrics were baked into the design from the get-go. I do not speak for Alan on the matter, but I know that Alan has one key proof in the bag why this may be so and that key proof is also part of Jean Paul Bauval's proof that the meter was known. Again, I have another explanation for this, but I'm even-handed here. I think all these theories have merit subject to falsification [which I have proposed one doable/feasible way to Robert].

A key assumption of Gary's theory, which he shares with Jacob (Sirfiroth), is that the four sides of the Great Pyramid were intentionally designed not to match. Jacob's theory clearly is at odds with that of Gary's with respect to what follows after that, but I am just making you aware of that one commonality. Jacob's theory is based on different cubits and an algorithm therefrom which is in line with known Egyptian mathematics. This couldn't be more opposed to Gary's theory of geodetic knowledge and esoteric knowledge like c, e, and alpha.

The weakness in your theory are the n/(n-1) factors one must use to convert from one system to the next. I can't shed the impression that these are contrived to make something stick that doesn't. In this case, I do apply Occam's Razor: If there was a global megalithic metric it should be unequivocally found across the globe. The conversion factors make this an equivocal notion. That's the problem I have with this. When you tried to use Gardiner N25 to prove that the ancient Egyptians knew the n/(n-1) concept, you lost me in the audience. I knew this can't be right. Also, none of you guys can show me an imperial foot in the Great Pyramid or anywhere in Egypt for that matter. The monuments of Egypt should be teeming with things 12 inches long and they are not. That's a huge red flag that something is wrong with this idea. For example, there is a wall around the mortuary temple of G-IIIa. Look up the clearance between that wall and the temple wall....George Reisner thought this was a gutter. That clearance appears to the identical to a margin width cut into the perimeter around the subsidiary pyramid of the Bent Pyramid. Look it up. That's a prime candidate for you to show the foot, yet it's not a foot. To my thinking, this too falsifies your theory.

Whatever were the fingerprints of lost knowledge and technology the Magicians of the Gods carried around the globe in their man bags, it was probably not the imperial metric system.

I can only go by my own impressions, David. I could be wrong obviously. There are so many theories floating around, one has to make choices and invariably one makes bad choices on this convoluted path through alternative history evidence.

Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 17-Jun-18 19:06 by Manu.

Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 803 DavidK 10-Jun-18 09:11
The n/(n-1) ancient systems 130 DavidK 11-Jun-18 06:24
the ancients are laughing at us 150 DavidK 11-Jun-18 06:57
Stonehenge using 561/560 146 DavidK 12-Jun-18 06:25
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 145 magisterchessmutt 16-Jun-18 06:26
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 123 DavidK 17-Jun-18 06:27
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 150 Manu 17-Jun-18 17:04
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 127 DavidK 18-Jun-18 12:34
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 114 rodz111 18-Jun-18 19:02
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 107 Manu 18-Jun-18 19:56
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 128 DavidK 18-Jun-18 22:13
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 122 Manu 19-Jun-18 03:19
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 117 DavidK 19-Jun-18 05:38
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 102 Manu 19-Jun-18 07:04
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 114 DavidK 19-Jun-18 10:42
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 146 Manu 19-Jun-18 18:11
Re: Stonehenge using 561/560 206 DavidK 20-Jun-18 19:12
Understanding “n/n-1” 129 Dr. Troglodyte 11-Jun-18 16:50
Re: Understanding “n/n-1” 141 DavidK 11-Jun-18 18:35
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 298 rodz111 12-Jun-18 19:48
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 126 DavidK 13-Jun-18 07:08
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 132 DavidK 13-Jun-18 07:30
GP perimeter using n/(n-1) 140 DavidK 13-Jun-18 13:38
The sekhed using n/(n-1) 152 DavidK 13-Jun-18 09:14
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 136 Sirfiroth 19-Jun-18 00:17
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 114 DavidK 19-Jun-18 20:17
Re: Understanding Michell's Canon and Thom using n/(n-1) 116 Sirfiroth 20-Jun-18 03:12

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.